JCPSLP Vol 15 No 2 2013_lores

37 / 60

JCPSLP Volume 15, Number 2 2013 87
Keywords
Language
assessment
Language
sample
analysis
bilingualism
cultural
diversity
This article
has been
peer-
reviewed
John J. Heilmann
(top) and
Marleen F.
Westerveld
Research
Bilingual language sample
analysis: Considerations
and technological advances
John J. Heilmann and Marleen F. Westerveld
services. Hand (2011) documented breakdowns in
communication between a group of SLPs and their clients
who were English-speaking and from diverse cultural
backgrounds which resulted in poor reviews of the clinical
services. It is imperative that clinicians provide sensitive and
appropriate care for their culturally and linguistically diverse
(CALD) clients (Speech Pathology Australia [SPA], 2009).
One of the biggest challenges for SLPs working with CALD
clients is effectively identifying children who have true
disorders and distinguishing them from those who have
communication differences based on their cultural or
linguistic background. While the need for sensitive and
accurate assessment is clear, it can be difficult to execute.
CALD children have a greater likelihood of being over- or
under-identified with a language impairment when
compared to mainstream monolingual peers (Bedore &
Peña, 2008).
When assessing CALD children, SLPs need to consider
a child’s relative proficiency across the dominant language
(L1) and second language (L2). Bilingualism is a complex
and dynamic phenomenon that is distinct from monolingual
language acquisition (Paradis, Genesee, & Crago, 2011).
Children can be fluent bilinguals with typically developing
language skills (L1 = L2), have limited proficiency in their
second language (L1 > L2), experience loss of their first
language (L1 < L2), or have a true language impairment
(both L1 and L2 are below expected levels; Kohnert, 2010).
Direct assessment of both L1 and L2 is difficult given the
lack of normative data available for most of the languages
spoken in Australia. Assessing non-English languages
presents a challenge for most Australian SLPs, who are
predominantly mainstream monolingual English speakers
and/or do not speak the language of their clients (Williams
& McLeod, 2012).
Professional associations, such as Speech Pathology
Australia (2009), caution against the use of norm-referenced
tests when working with CALD children. Most norm-
referenced tests are laden with biases that discriminate
against CALD populations; they do not account for the
distinct language profiles of children learning multiple
languages, often do not use CALD children in their norming
samples, and frequently contain content and formatting that
are unfamiliar to CALD children (White & Jin, 2011). Given
these biases, CALD children who are proficient in English
may still have significant difficulty with norm-referenced
tests. For example, Hemsley, Holm, and Dodd (2006)
found that bilingual 11-year-old Australian children who
were fluent in English scored significantly lower than their
With the increasing cultural and linguistic
diversity of speech-language pathologists’
caseloads, there is a pressing need for assess­
ments that enable accurate and authentic
evaluations of the communication skills of
children from diverse backgrounds. Language
sample analysis (LSA) has many properties that
make it an effective tool for the comprehensive
evaluation of culturally and linguistically
diverse (CALD) children’s expressive language
skills. Using LSA allows the clinician to
assess language skills within naturalistic
discourse, and as such, is more suitable for
CALD children than most decontextualised
norm-referenced assessments. Furthermore,
LSA provides rich descriptive data and can be
used within a dynamic assessment protocol
to assist with the accurate identification of
CALD children with language impairments.
The goal of this paper is to summarise the
complex issues that arise when completing
LSA with paediatric CALD clients and
describe how technological advances in
computerised LSA have improved the
accuracy and efficiency of the process.
Throughout much of the world, speech-language
pathologists’ (SLPs) caseloads are becoming more
culturally and linguistically diverse. This is particularly
evident in Australia, where more than one fifth of the
population speaks more than one language (Australian
Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2010). While most children
speak English as their primary language, a substantial
percentage (about 12%) has a different dominant language
(McLeod, 2011). In addition to the linguistic diversity, SLPs
need to consider their clients’ concurrent cultural diversity;
in the 2010 Census, Australians identified more than 270
different ancestral backgrounds (ABS, 2010).
Cultural and linguistic influences
on language assessment
Even when clients have strong English skills, a mismatch
between the SLP’s and client’s culture can impact clinical